WQHD (2560×1440)
Useless and horrible. Why would u want that resolution on a TV?
Lots of people use consoles for media streaming. Just because YOU don't doesn't mean it's not a valid use case.
I have a PS3 at home that I use for Blu-Ray discs and Netflix. I can also stream movies from my NAS onto my TV using it. Guess how many PS3 games I own? Zero. I use it exclusively as a media device.
Although, ever since I got the Apple TV, I use the PS3 roughly half the time now.
I never said that since I don't use then it should not be used like that. That's only for people that never seen the death grip around these parts...
My point is that it is still a gaming machine FIRST. I doubt there are many people who by an XBOX as a Media player FIRST, but I could be wrong
If the device can adapt it's Resolution for the content you won't notice when it kicks down to Full HD 1920 x 1080 seeing that WQHD is a 16:9 aspect ratio being that it is Wide-Quad HD.
FYI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WQHD#WQHD_.282560.C3.971440.29
People said the same thing about the iPad and iPhone...who's asking for this? No one is.
Apple is good at creating stuff you don't know you need and want. It's their specialty.
It's still useless, and won't be good for anything other than a sticker attraction. Assuming that 1920x downscaled will look as good on 2560x as it does native, it's still doesn't change the fact that there aren't any shows out there to take advantage of it. So you'll have this nice TV that will never display any content at it's native resolution, and is more expensive because it's...ooh...higher res than the competition.
The only thing it'd be good for is the UI. But considering you'll be sitting at least 10 feet away from a 50" TV, you won't ever notice the difference.
It's so he can watch something less boring.
On the basis that they own the rights to "iTV" which everyone keeps dubbing this thing. I believe ITV have already won the whole ITV thing anyway against Apple with the Apple TV which was going to be called iTV.On what bases?
but with those specs they can charge a fortune!![]()
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/9A405)
I don't get why Microsoft is listed as one of the companies feeling threatened by this move. They're not in the home electronics/TV market. Is it just that they want Apple to fail? Do they feel this somehow threatens their share in the PC marketplace? I can see how the iPad is a threat to PCs, but who will replace a computer with a TV?
Do bear in mind though that a large segment of Apple's target market do not live in Texas-sized houses
I live in the UK in a decent sized house and believe me a 52" screen is really far too big. Not even talking about your lottery-winner style theatre room with 120" projection.
There is plenty of market for smaller sizes outside the US.
[...] the industry's existing players working hard to avoid to being caught flat-footed by Apple as mobile phone manufacturers in many cases were by the iPhone. [...]
If iTV is a problem, how about iveTV ?
You mean like the Pippin, the Cube, and that round mouse everyone hated?
Nothing leads to failure quicker than the belief everything you do is awesome, I just hope Apple has more sense than their fanboys.
Some people also just like the screen to be larger. I watch my 47" screen from 5-10'. I plan to replace it with a 70" or larger model in the next couple of years. My customers & me will remain in the same position as this is my fixed office space. 35 years ago it was a 12' X 17' living room, but office now. But then we are looking at text & numbers most of the time.
99.9% of the items in Sir Jony's lab never end up on a store shelf.
Chances are we will never see pictures of this device.
It's still useless, and won't be good for anything other than a sticker attraction. Assuming that 1920x downscaled will look as good on 2560x as it does native, it's still doesn't change the fact that there aren't any shows out there to take advantage of it.